Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

Posted by sizzle 10 hours ago

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring(hai.stanford.edu)

https://algorithmichiring.github.io/

135 points | 144 commentspage 4

tamimio 8 hours ago|

You don’t need a complicated study to find out, do it yourself for science. Get a resume, make few different versions but keep the context the same, change the layout (one time education on top other on bottom etc etc), and use different names to signal different backgrounds, and you can extend it to schools too and gender, and send it to the same employers, you will see wonders!!

I tried it before, and discrimination is there, I would get one resume rejected quickly and few days later the same company would invite another resume for a screening call. I tried this before and after AI hype, results weren’t that different btw, and that was tested in US and Canada employers only.

logicchains 9 hours ago||

Could the AI actually see the race of the applicants? Or was it just discriminating on the basis of some factor it found that was correlated with race, like SAT scores?

foolserrandboy 8 hours ago||

It rejected Asians more because of their higher SAT scores? If it’s not directly based on applicants disclosing their ethnicity then probably something more obvious like names.

runako 8 hours ago|||

> discriminating on the basis of some factor it found that was correlated with race, like SAT scores

Hypothetical SAT score: 1060

How does that help you predict the race of an individual applicant? It's been a while since I took the SAT, but I didn't realize one's score provided so much information.

gacgacgac 8 hours ago|||

Name. Other factors were controlled.

moate 8 hours ago|||

Where was this listed in the study? I can't find this anywhere in either the linked page or the Github https://algorithmichiring.github.io/

moate 8 hours ago||

I'm going to assume that people aren't allowed to put "don't send me black applicants" into their process even if they do see race in the application as that's entirely illegal.

The paper's conclusion, that we need to study this more, is showing the authors likely believe this to be a byproduct of inherent/invisible bias.

bakugo 9 hours ago||

> To put this in perspective: If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants)

Some people just can't help but put their biases on display at every opportunity, even when it comes to the most minute details.

gacgacgac 8 hours ago||

Nothing in this has any bias in it? Which words are you suggesting are biased? This study measured constructed resumes where only names were changed, and observed the rate each group was favored (the percentage of resumes that passed). One group must be "most favored" because thats how math works. It's the group whose percentage was the highest. The resumes were fictional and equivalent across race, only the names were changed.

bakugo 7 hours ago||

Look closer at the capitalization of the words in the quoted sentence.

moate 8 hours ago||

Where do you think this sentence shows bias?

The phrase "most-favored" means, "most recommended by the AI relative to the field".

What did you think this sentence meant?

redsocksfan45 8 hours ago||

[dead]

everyone 9 hours ago||

Its fucking crazy that people are using these systems for important tasks like hiring. They have zero understanding about how these systems work. And LLMs are absolutely not designed to do those sorts of jobs, they're designed to be chatbots and to fool a human conversing them that they are responding intelligently. Of course they're gonna be useless at other tasks.

(I assume they're just using a big LLM for this, it doesnt say, it just says "AI" when they say "AI like that they usually mean LLM".. A custom trained hiring ML system would be better)

engineer_22 9 hours ago|

Isn't HR basically just an LLM with ears and teeth?

GrinningFool 8 hours ago||

[dead]

marsven_422 7 hours ago||

[dead]

anonreeeeplor 9 hours ago||

[dead]

huflungdung 8 hours ago||

[dead]

JuniperMesos 8 hours ago||

[flagged]

techblueberry 8 hours ago||

> These results are consistent with AI hiring tools being completely racially unbiased, and real-world hiring managers feeling social pressure to hire underqualified black people

And so managers are feeling social pressure to hire under qualified Asians as well? I must not be up to date on the latest culture war talking points, because I thought Asians were underrepresented.

JuniperMesos 8 hours ago||

Yeah, if they themselves are asian. One of the most prevalent complaints about Indian hiring managers in the silicon valley tech industry is that they preferentially hire Indians and push out non-Indians to a tremendous degree, and are often helping Indian hires commit pretty blatant credential fraud.

dzonga 8 hours ago||

does your anecdote comprise of the various instances when CVs were discriminated against cz people's names sounded black ?

but you want to spew nonsense. every racial group includes its own under-qualified people ! there's no social pressure i.e DEI excuse you wanna give - but just economic agents acting for their own interests

jimmy76615 7 hours ago|

[flagged]

More comments...